Sanctions & Striking Out
PD 29, para 7, Failure to comply with case management directions
Where a party fails to comply with a direction any other party may apply for an
order that: he (1) must comply or (2) for a sanction or (3) both.
The party entitled to apply (i.e. the innocent party) for such an order must do so
without delay; but should first warn the other party of his intention to do so.
The court may take any such delay into account when deciding whether to impose
an order for sanction or granting relief from a sanction imposed by rules/PD.
Principles:
1) Court will not allow a failure to comply with directions to lead to
postponement of trial, unless exceptional circumstances
2) If it is practical, court will exercise its powers in a manner enabling the court
to come to trial on the date/within the period set.
3) Court will assess what steps each party should take to prepare the case for
trial; direction that those steps are taken in the shortest possible time; and
impose sanction for non-compliance.
a. Such sanction may, for eg: deprive a party of a right to raise or
contest an issue, or to rely on evidence to which the direction relates.
4) Where it appears that 1+ issues are, or can be, made ready for trial at the
time fixed; but others cannot court may direct that the trial will proceed
on the issues which are then ready, and direct that no costs will be allowed
for any later trial of the remaining issues; or that those costs will be paid by
the party in default.
5) Where the court has no option but to postpone trial will be for the
shortest possible time, and will give directions for taking of necessary steps
in the meantime as rapidly as poss
6) Litigants and lawyers must be in no doubt that the court will regard
postponement of trial as an order of last resort.
a. Where it appears inevitable to postpone trial the court may
exercise its power to require a party as well as his legal rep to attend
court at the hearing where such an order is sought.
7) The court will not postpone any other hearing without a very good reason;
a. failure of a party to comply on time with directions previously given
is NOT a good reason.
3.9, Relief from sanctions
(1) On an application for relief from any sanction imposed for a failure to comply
with any rule/PD/court order the court will consider all the circumstances of the
case, so as to enable it to deal justly with the application, including the need:
o (a) for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost; and
o (b) to enforce compliance with rules, PDs and orders.
(2) an application for relief must be supported by evidence
Commentary, 3.9.1, Effect of rule in general terms
court’s general discretion to give relief from any sanction.
, R3.9(1) applies in cases where: a party applies for an extension of time in order to
negate procedural sanction already suffered because of failure to comply with a time
limit set by a rule/PD/order.
The sanction imposed may be:
o the entry of judgment against the defaulting party (eg an unless order)
o the loss of right to call a witness (eg under r32.10, consequence of failure to
serve witness statement/summary). 32.10 amounts to a ‘sanction’, so 3.9
applies. Or eg failure to disclose expert report consequence, cannot use
expert evidence at trial.
o Loss of right to participate in a hearing (eg a debarring order, penalty under
47.9(3).
In some cases, specific rule provision is made for relief from particular sanctions, eg:
o Part 13 [setting aside or varying default judgment]
R3.9 does NOT apply where the sanction imposed is an order for the payment of
costs in such case, the party in default may obtain relief only by appealing
against the order for costs (r3.8(2)).
Refusal to grant relief against a debarring sanction (loss of right to participate in a
hearing) does not contravene Art 6 ECHR, provided that such refusal is
proportionate and for a legitimate purpose.
o In Momson, legit purpose of requiring the party to comply with a court
order that had been made with a view to achieving a fair trial.
o If court concludes that the party’s non-compliance with the disclosure order
meant that a fair trial was not possible, judge balanced the 3.9 factors and
considered the OO - default party not granted any relief.
o CA: this was compliance with Art 6 ECHR. Is required, so that litigants should
not be able with impunity to avoid compliance with court orders made for
the purpose of holding a fair trial.
R3.9 is engaged not simply where a party has failed to comply with any
rule/pd/order; but only where a sanction has been imposed as a result of that
failure:
The Mitchell/Denton principles CA guidance on how to deal with r3.9
applications.
o These principles now underscore the court’s approach to rule-compliance in
all circumstances, whether or not r3.9 itself is engaged.
Commentary, 3.9.3, formulation of rule since April 2013
Under r3.9, court is required to consider ‘all the circumstances of the case, to enable
it to deal justly with the application’.
2 factors mentioned specifically:
1. (a) need for litigation to be conducted efficiently & proportionate cost
2. (b) need to enforce compliance with rules/PDs/court orders
o Under r3.9, all circumstances should be considered, but these two factors
specifically mentioned should be given more weight than other factors.
o Hence court should treat with cautions guidance given in cases interpreting
the pre-April 2013 formulation of the rule.
Mitchell v News Group Newspapers (2013), HC: C had failed to lodge a cost budget
within seven days prior to first hearing of his defamation claim as required under
PD 29, para 7, Failure to comply with case management directions
Where a party fails to comply with a direction any other party may apply for an
order that: he (1) must comply or (2) for a sanction or (3) both.
The party entitled to apply (i.e. the innocent party) for such an order must do so
without delay; but should first warn the other party of his intention to do so.
The court may take any such delay into account when deciding whether to impose
an order for sanction or granting relief from a sanction imposed by rules/PD.
Principles:
1) Court will not allow a failure to comply with directions to lead to
postponement of trial, unless exceptional circumstances
2) If it is practical, court will exercise its powers in a manner enabling the court
to come to trial on the date/within the period set.
3) Court will assess what steps each party should take to prepare the case for
trial; direction that those steps are taken in the shortest possible time; and
impose sanction for non-compliance.
a. Such sanction may, for eg: deprive a party of a right to raise or
contest an issue, or to rely on evidence to which the direction relates.
4) Where it appears that 1+ issues are, or can be, made ready for trial at the
time fixed; but others cannot court may direct that the trial will proceed
on the issues which are then ready, and direct that no costs will be allowed
for any later trial of the remaining issues; or that those costs will be paid by
the party in default.
5) Where the court has no option but to postpone trial will be for the
shortest possible time, and will give directions for taking of necessary steps
in the meantime as rapidly as poss
6) Litigants and lawyers must be in no doubt that the court will regard
postponement of trial as an order of last resort.
a. Where it appears inevitable to postpone trial the court may
exercise its power to require a party as well as his legal rep to attend
court at the hearing where such an order is sought.
7) The court will not postpone any other hearing without a very good reason;
a. failure of a party to comply on time with directions previously given
is NOT a good reason.
3.9, Relief from sanctions
(1) On an application for relief from any sanction imposed for a failure to comply
with any rule/PD/court order the court will consider all the circumstances of the
case, so as to enable it to deal justly with the application, including the need:
o (a) for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost; and
o (b) to enforce compliance with rules, PDs and orders.
(2) an application for relief must be supported by evidence
Commentary, 3.9.1, Effect of rule in general terms
court’s general discretion to give relief from any sanction.
, R3.9(1) applies in cases where: a party applies for an extension of time in order to
negate procedural sanction already suffered because of failure to comply with a time
limit set by a rule/PD/order.
The sanction imposed may be:
o the entry of judgment against the defaulting party (eg an unless order)
o the loss of right to call a witness (eg under r32.10, consequence of failure to
serve witness statement/summary). 32.10 amounts to a ‘sanction’, so 3.9
applies. Or eg failure to disclose expert report consequence, cannot use
expert evidence at trial.
o Loss of right to participate in a hearing (eg a debarring order, penalty under
47.9(3).
In some cases, specific rule provision is made for relief from particular sanctions, eg:
o Part 13 [setting aside or varying default judgment]
R3.9 does NOT apply where the sanction imposed is an order for the payment of
costs in such case, the party in default may obtain relief only by appealing
against the order for costs (r3.8(2)).
Refusal to grant relief against a debarring sanction (loss of right to participate in a
hearing) does not contravene Art 6 ECHR, provided that such refusal is
proportionate and for a legitimate purpose.
o In Momson, legit purpose of requiring the party to comply with a court
order that had been made with a view to achieving a fair trial.
o If court concludes that the party’s non-compliance with the disclosure order
meant that a fair trial was not possible, judge balanced the 3.9 factors and
considered the OO - default party not granted any relief.
o CA: this was compliance with Art 6 ECHR. Is required, so that litigants should
not be able with impunity to avoid compliance with court orders made for
the purpose of holding a fair trial.
R3.9 is engaged not simply where a party has failed to comply with any
rule/pd/order; but only where a sanction has been imposed as a result of that
failure:
The Mitchell/Denton principles CA guidance on how to deal with r3.9
applications.
o These principles now underscore the court’s approach to rule-compliance in
all circumstances, whether or not r3.9 itself is engaged.
Commentary, 3.9.3, formulation of rule since April 2013
Under r3.9, court is required to consider ‘all the circumstances of the case, to enable
it to deal justly with the application’.
2 factors mentioned specifically:
1. (a) need for litigation to be conducted efficiently & proportionate cost
2. (b) need to enforce compliance with rules/PDs/court orders
o Under r3.9, all circumstances should be considered, but these two factors
specifically mentioned should be given more weight than other factors.
o Hence court should treat with cautions guidance given in cases interpreting
the pre-April 2013 formulation of the rule.
Mitchell v News Group Newspapers (2013), HC: C had failed to lodge a cost budget
within seven days prior to first hearing of his defamation claim as required under
